Sunday, August 19, 2012

Political commentators in the United States have long puzzled over the phenomenon of lower- and middle-class voters voting against their own obvious interests, primarily their economic interests. Many explanations have been offered. Certainly, the political propaganda disseminated by the rich through the media which they own and through the political discourse which they now direct through campaign contributions and unfettered campaign advertising is one cause.

In particular, the inherent cultural conservatism of many in the middle and lower classes has made them susceptible to messages emphasizing issues such as abortion; immigration; the role of religion in government, particularly in public schools; and the corrupting effects of a sexually promiscuous culture. Political elites know these issues will attract votes even if those same elites have no intention of doing much about the issues. These issues, however, remain potent ways to get people to vote unknowingly for economic policies that have redistributed vast sums of wealth upward in American society. This redistribution has been done through 1) low tax rates on high incomes resulting in vast deficit spending leading to the issuance of government bonds purchased primarily by the rich who then receive interest from America's middle- and lower-class taxpayers instead of having to pay taxes that would lower the deficit and 2) through the deregulation of industry, particularly of the financial industry in ways that have allowed vast fraud to be perpetrated on the public, for example, by the mortgage industry.

All of this has become exceedingly obvious since the crash of 2008. And yet, the public has failed to band together effectively to put an end to it. Why is this so? I do not propose a comprehensive explanation here, but rather I will outline what I believe is a neglected and central reason for the lack of solidarity among America's middle- and lower-class voters on economic and other issues. The explanation comes from William Catton Jr., author of Bottleneck, who also wrote a classic book on human ecology entitled Overshoot.

In Bottleneck Catton explains that the late 19th century French sociologist Emile Durkheim believed that the division of labor in society which resulted in heightened interdependence among humans also led inevitably to greater solidarity. Catton counters with the views of American sociologist E. A. Ross who believed that that same interdependence was leading to far more vulnerability among humans to predatory behavior from other humans. Catton leans toward Ross's view for a very important reason: Humans now labor in narrow occupational niches within our highly complex society in the same way that species occupy ecological niches in nature. This specialization leads to competition within each niche for the limited number of positions available.

Consequently, the harder the economic times, the more intense the competition for the reduced number of positions within each niche. This leads to anxiety among those already holding a job since they are often not skilled enough to find work in other niches. The employee often asks himself or herself, "What could I possibly do if I were no longer able to do this kind of work?" Naturally, this concern also creates anxiety among those who are unemployed and seeking jobs within a particular niche.

So, it is no wonder that those in the middle and lower strata of society have a difficult time joining together for common action when they are daily locked in a struggle over keeping or getting jobs in their respective niches. This competition becomes especially acute in the United States where access to health care services, pension programs and other social benefits are largely dependent on having a job and thus add to each job holder's and job seeker's worries.

It makes sense then that in European nations which have generous universal services available at little or no cost, middle- and lower-class people are less afraid to band together when they feel their position in society threatened by elites. This is in part because basic income support, health care and other services are available with or without a job. The French, in particular, have long been notable for their general strikes and other work stoppages and protests that have frequently caused the French government either to give up on planned changes adversely affecting working people or reverse changes already made.

It also makes sense that wealthy elites in the United States largely oppose the expansion of social benefits such as health care. These benefits would tend to make it easier for middle- and lower-class people to find solidarity because competitive pressure to seek a job to obtain them would be reduced. I am reminded of the American Liberty League formed during the Great Depression to oppose President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. The league drew from the cream of America's corporations. Some of the members even said publicly that reduced wages resulting from economic contraction would improve discipline and character among America's workers--code words for preventing any substantial solidarity from arising among the lower classes.

Catton believes, however, that the competition among individuals in occupational niches in modern industrial society cannot be eliminated. The division of labor which has made the growth in population and the power of modern civilization possible will also be its undoing. He believes the division of labor will continue to increase alienation and predation among and between humans. And, that will make it difficult to gain consensus to act decisively in the face of the urgent challenges of climate change, resource depletion, pollution, soil degradation and the myriad problems which threaten humankind.

Kurt Cobb is the author of the peak-oil-themed thriller, Prelude, and a columnist for the Paris-based science news site Scitizen. His work has also been featured on Energy Bulletin, The Oil Drum, 321energy, Common Dreams, Le Monde Diplomatique, EV World, and many other sites. He maintains a blog called Resource Insights.

Got to disagree with your lumping immigration in with the other issues you mention. It is not in the interest of the working people of American to have massive importation of cheap labor. You need to educate yourself on the facts about the effects that high levels of immigration have on developed societies and on local and the global environment. Go to the Progressives for Immigration Reform web site. Go to Californians for Population stabilization site. Read Dave Foreman's "Man Swarm and the Killing of wildlife". The Repugs get a lot of solidarity mileage out of immigration. The Hypocrats are far more dependable on immigration from the Chamber of Commerce and the American Board of Realtors perspective. Back during the thirties immigration had already been taken off the table. My question to you is "are you really a Localizer or a Globalizer"? You are always sitting Cotton as an authority then you know population does matter. It matters locally, regionally and globally. It is a well established fact that unsustainable levels of immigration are major drivers of population growth in our communities, states and nation. Until you state otherwise I consider your otherwise excellent analysis to be marred by a "knee-jerk liberalism" on immigration. I consider myself to be an ecologically informed citizen who does not like being called a racist for not towing the left-wing environmentalist line on immigration. I am as well a homosexual who certainly does not put the question of same-sex marriage at the center of my political views. And, yes if I do choose to vote in my local congressional election I will be voting for the Repug candidate because he is much better on immigration.

I am glad Pops found my analysis eye-opening. William Catton has a way of opening eyes to completely different ways of seeing the world.

As for Lucas, I think he is correct that it is not necessarily in the interests of working people in the United States to be competing with cheap imported labor. That said, politicians usually don't talk about that if they oppose the essentially open borders we have now. Usually, they label immigrants as criminals and welfare cheats. They do this to rile up voters and not because they intend to do anything about immigration. Getting elected allows them to pursue the economic policies that reward the rich. Pounding on the immigration issue is merely a means to an end.

Of course, the vast majority of immigrants are here just to work, and work hard they do for very little money.

It seems to me that the real issue is the very low wages (often below the legal minimum wage) and atrocious working conditions which we allow in many industries (meatpacking and agricultural labor come to mind) are what allow this to happen.

If this type of work paid well and conditions were in conformance with the law, many Americans would be doing this work and fewer immigrants would cross the border. In fact, many Americans used to do this work. Fruit tramps, usually single American men, could actually make a living picking fruit seasonally around the country.

We as a society could decide to insist on a living wage for all work and that would completely change employment dynamics in this country as well as reversing ongoing income distribution upwards.

And, now having said all that, I would say that the United States has essentially adopted an open borders policy. As conditions worsen abroad due to financial collapse, energy shortages, crop failures and so on, we will find out just what an open borders policy means.

It's hard to say what kind of immigration policy one could draft for such a future. Desperate people have a way of making policy irrelevant.

Kurt Cobb said...>>>it is not necessarily in the interests of working people in the United States to be competing with cheap imported labor. That said, politicians usually don't talk about that if they oppose the essentially open borders we have now. Usually, they label immigrants as criminals and welfare cheats. They do this to rile up voters and not because they intend to do anything about immigration. Getting elected allows them to pursue the economic policies that reward the rich. Pounding on the immigration issue is merely a means to an end.<<<

It's quite unfortunate if voters fall for politicians who lie to them about what they're going to do in office. However, as far as I know, immigrants do commit crime and cause other kinds of costs to the non-immigrant public. That crime and other costs do impact the lower class, too - maybe even more than the middle and upper class.

But really... if talking about immigrant crime and welfare costs is truly such an easy way to get votes and into office, it seems like all politicians in your country, including the "good" ones that would do all those nice things that you talk about for the lower and middle class once elected, should be doing it. Right?

>>>the vast majority of immigrants are here just to work, and work hard they do for very little money.

It seems to me that the real issue is the very low wages (often below the legal minimum wage) and atrocious working conditions which we allow in many industries (meatpacking and agricultural labor come to mind) are what allow this to happen.<<<

That there are immigrants available to work hard for little money would seem to worsen the non-immigrant lower class' position on the job market, which I think should cause the division of income to shift in a direction favorable to the upper class, and workers being forced to accept worse working conditions in order to compete with those hard working immigrants. This seems to be exactly what you're lamenting.

>>>If this type of work paid well and conditions were in conformance with the law, many Americans would be doing this work and fewer immigrants would cross the border. In fact, many Americans used to do this work. Fruit tramps, usually single American men, could actually make a living picking fruit seasonally around the country.

We as a society could decide to insist on a living wage for all work and that would completely change employment dynamics in this country as well as reversing ongoing income distribution upwards.<<<

Reducing low-skilled, "hard working for little money" immigration would seem to me to help steer the job market a little in that direction, too. And it might be much more realistic a goal than a radical revolution, if you ask me.

Great response Kurt, although I do think you underestimate the strain high levels of immigration place on our social-welfare system. The way I like to put it is politicians either like to pound on or idolize immigrates and avoid having an adult discussion about immigration policy. Clearly that discussion must be linked to reforms in our labor markets and doing something about income and wealth distribution. But, from an environmental perspective the most important immigration reform that could take place is linking levels of immigration to a national population policy. This was the old Sierra Club position -- before they took, what was for them, a boat-load of money to shut-up on population.

I as well support Progressives for Immigration Reform {PFRI} call for there being done a full Environmental Impact Statement on the effects of immigration. I wrote my congresswoman, Colleen Hanabusa, expressing my support of the PFRI position. In her response Colleen stated it was essential that we continue to increase our "national diversity" in order to remain a "dynamic society capable of dealing successfully with the challenges of the future". What utter nonsense!

Kurt, you certainly said a mouth full when you suggested that the United States "will find out what an open borders policy means ... as conditions worsen abroad". Bottom-line, what gets me the most upset about the open border fanatics is that they truly believe our taking in such high-levels of immigrates is actually truly improving conditions in their counties of origin. It may have in that open world of the past -- but not now is this full world of today. And, again in that even fuller world of tomorrow -- God help us.

Excellent article and as a member of a constructin union it really hit home. The construction industry back in the 60's and 70's was a path to the middle class and in some cases the upper middle class. Our own mistakes of believing non-union craftsmen were a threat to our way of life. We were much like country clubs at that time and refused to admit them into our local unions. In many cases we allowed them on our jobs but refused them membership in the name of job security.The Business Round Table was formed because the Building Trades were doing very well at the bargaining table. They developed a plan to take that power away from the Building Trades and when the first oil embargo hit the building trades got hit hard with layoffs. The first to go were the workers that had been refused membership. The Roundtable members were prepared and began giving work to non-union employers that now had a union trained source of manpower. In many areas of the country union bacame non existant and much lower wages soon followed. Ron Reagon then did away with enforcement of most all labor laws. With no enforcement of labor laws and immigration policy non-employers next moved into using illegal workers that could be exploited. While the Republicans railed about immigration thier large non-union employrs began employing tens of thousands of illegal workers knowing full well the government under pressure from those that wanted to get government out of the way. As a union organizer I encountered this all across the country. With regards to Davis Bacon and the Fair Standards act non-one in government remembered how to enforce the law. It will take years to rebuild enforcement of labor laws began under the OBAMA adminstration. Jim

Niche competition for jobs is a very interesting idea, thanks for writing about this. It seems that there is increasing cross-over between thinking on ecology, business and sociology - see also resilience theory where ecology and Schumpeterian business cycles have much in common.

But for a comprehensive treatment of why people vote against their interests, I think you also need to consider The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt.